OUR VIEWS - Getting there - GOALS 1997

When It Comes To Distributing Federal Gas-tax Dollars,

The South Has Been Short-changed. States Such As Florida

No Longer Can Afford To Export That Money.

When Congress decides this fall how to divvy up billions of dollars in gasoline taxes, fairness and equity should frame the debate.

For too long, federal lawmakers have ignored explosive growth in the South and instead have spent gas-tax dollars collected in the South to repair crumbling roads and bridges in the North.

That must change.

Florida, for example, gets back only 77 cents for every dollar it collects in federal gas taxes. Georgia gets 75 cents.

By contrast, New York gets $1.07. New Jersey gets $1.13. Massachusetts gets $2.49.

No one disputes that the northern states need the money they get. Severe weather exacts a heavy toll on roads and bridges, many of which are much older and in need of repair than those in the South. And, yes, mass transit is more established in the North, meaning that fewer people pay gas taxes.

Donor states such as Florida, though, have a more compelling argument.

Florida doesn't even have the roads, bridges and mass-transit options it needs to support its growing population - never mind the cash to repair existing structures.

Absent money to meet those basic needs, it makes no sense for the South to send its transportation dollars elsewhere.

The difficult issue that Congress must decide is how to meet the South's burgeoning demands while continuing to support the North's road-dependent economy.

Thus far, Florida Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia have proposed the most sensible plan. They would make sure that no state gets less than 95 cents back for every gas-tax dollar it sends to Washington. Mass-transit money would not be affected.

That's makes sense for several reasons:

It would allow northwestern states such as Montana, with a small tax base and vast expanses of federal highway, to maintain those roads to federal standards and meet local transportation needs.

States with growing populations would be assured a more equitable return, which should allow for more of an investment in transportation improvements.

Many northern states, particularly New York, are heavily reliant on mass transit. It's reasonable to assume, then, that those states would need less money for roads and bridges because they already have mass-transit options.

Not that the Warner-Graham proposal is without flaws.

For example, it wouldn't put an end to the abhorrent ''pork barrel'' spending on pet transportation projects that lawmakers seek to curry favor back home.

Such projects have been a boon to lawmakers such as Rep. Bud Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the House of Representatives' Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Through the years, Mr. Shuster has channeled so much money into his district that a highway was named in his honor.

Also, the Graham-Warner plan could blow a huge hole into the federal budget deficit by using some of the $23 billion in gas-tax revenue that has been collected but not spent. That money is used to offset the federal deficit. Mr. Shuster also wants to spend money in that so-called trust fund.

Balancing the federal budget and reducing the federal deficit, though, should be a primary goal for Congress. Therefore, Mr. Graham, Mr. Warner and Mr. Shuster should suggest spending cuts in other federal programs to make up for the money they would spend on transportation.

Another proposal, by Florida Sen. Connie Mack and Rep. John Kasich of Ohio, would phase out the federal government's role in transportation financing gradually. Because the interstate-highway system now is complete, they say, road- and bridge-building should be left to individual states. Two cents still would be collected for every gallon of gas sold, to maintain the current interestate-highway system.

Although an appealing notion at first blush, that plan could have some dangerous, if unintended, consequences.

When the interstate-highway system was conceived back in the 1950s, two-thirds of all interstate commerce was moved by rail. That now has dwindled to one-third, putting more of a burden on the nation's roads.

That why Congress, more than two years ago, designated a secondary network of roads deemed critically important to national security and commerce interests. Building, improving and maintaining those secondary roads are continuing federal interests.

The Mack-Kasich plan does not recognize that reality.

What's more, there's no guarantee that states would continue to collect the federal tax if left to their own devices. That could have the unintended and undesirable effect of pitting one state against another for transportation dollars.

A final proposal about how to spend federal transportation dollars has been advanced by President Clinton. Understandably, the president's plan is being championed by states in the Northeast. Why?

Because it would do little to alter the distribution of money.

With so much at stake, turning a blind eye to the transportation needs of high-growth states such as Florida would be an unacceptable approach.

Without a viable transportation system, no community will prosper or be able to nurture economic development. That's why the stakes in this debate are so high.

At this point, the Graham-Warner plan - with some adjustments - would seem to be the best option.

Lawmakers shouldn't be swayed by the shrill rhetoric of leaders of some northeastern states that could lose money.

Instead, the transportation financing issue should be decided on the basis of fairness and equity for all.